I believe I found the basis of my lawsuit. I suspect Ginni and Clarence Thomas, with the help of Mark Meadows, used – and are still using – our Church, Government, and Judiciary Branch, to create
There is such a thing. I suspect Clarence ENJOYED AND ADMIRED HIS WORK when he helped repeal Roe vs. Wade – and sought to derive MORE ENJOYMENT by threatening to do away with gay and contraceptive rights! I contend he and his wife – love to see The Liberal Left – SQUIRM.
“Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.
Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”
The Thomas’ and Mark Meadows have to know these three issues – are moral issues! Did they seek the advice of Moral Men and Women, in arriving at a ruling, such as the head of a church? Pope Benedict reversed his stance on contraception in order to – SAVE THE LIVES OF THE LIVING – verses the unborn. HIV was like a plague in Africa. HIV devastated the Gay Community of San Francisco. Did the Pope consider the truth Gay People would FEEL MORALLY FREE to use condoms, verses, MORALLY ASHAMED? How many gay people are practicing Catholics?
We know Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows had a RELIGIOUS CELEBRATION about Stopping the Steal in that they believe they were in a RELIGIOUS FIGHT? If so, is this why he announced he is going after gay and contraceptive rights, knowing his wife – WOULD SQUEAL FOR HOLY JOY! How about Mark Meadows? Did he get THE HOLY SIGN Justice Clarence is on their side, and…
THE SIDE OF THE LORD
“That same day, Mr Meadows texted her back: “This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in D”
The question is, did Clarence EVER know, and understand his wife was conducting RELIGIOUS FIGHTS?
I want to bring a suit against Ginni and Clarence Thomas, and Mark Meadows. It is my hope to put an end to the Supreme Court Rulings that benefit Christians who have been practicing MORAL PANIC – from the beginning. Paul bids his followers NOT to get married, and if married, ACT like they are not. Paul says the world is ending, and FORNICATING will decrease you chance of going to heaven. How’s that for a MORAL PANIC that keeps on giving!
“I want to fornicate, but I’m terrified of being tortured in hell – for an eternity – by Red Devils!”
To claim the election was stolen by subhuman lovers of Red Devils, knowing this is a lie – IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF MORAL PANIC – WITH FOLK DEVIL!
Marjorie Taylor Green was anointed Our National Folk Devil by McCarthy. Her SUBCOMMITEE is designed to create more Moral Panic in the ranks of the Immoral Left, as she claims she has the blessing of our Founding Fathers – who are against this Folk Nightmare Panic. It is un-Constitutional because it is aimed at destroying The Pursuit of Happiness of Non-Christians. by Witch Hunters. Their Folk Devil promises to show Sub-human Vote Thieves – no mercy! I laugh every time I read this;
“We are so serious!”
Spoken like a real prudish Puritan Witch Hunter.
“We are so serious, it’s not just a goal, it’s a rule,” Greene tweeted on Sunday, and added what appeared to be a quote from the rules package: “Establish the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government to investigate the full extent of the Biden Administration’s assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens.”
Pope Benedict showed mercy for THE DYING and relieved the MORAL PANIC of millions. For doing this, he will be admitted to heaven – in my opinion!e
DOWN WITH CHRISTIAN HELTER-SKELTER!
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is facing fresh calls for an investigation following the release of his wife’s testimony to the House of Representatives’ January 6 committee.
Conservative activist Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas told the committee that she “never spoke” with her husband about challenges to the 2020 presidential election but some of her comments have led to calls for a probe into Justice Thomas.
During her interview, Thomas was asked about a text message she sent to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows saying she had spoken to her “best friend” and identified that person as her husband.
What St. Paul advises is that people who enter the Church (at this early date the Church was growing primarily through adult converts) should remain as they are. Married people should remain married. Unmarried people should remain unmarried. Remember that people in the early Church generally assumed Christ’s return was imminent. In light of that assumption, contracting a new marriage was seen as less important. Paul says, “the appointed time has grown very short; from now on let those who have wives live as through they had none” (1 Cor 7:29).
In a break with his traditional teaching, Pope Benedict XVI has said the use of condoms is acceptable “in certain cases”, in an extended interview to be published this week.
After holding firm during his papacy to the Vatican’s blanket ban on the use of contraceptives, Benedict’s surprise comments will shock conservatives in the Catholic church while finding favour with senior Vatican figures who are pushing for a new line on the issue as HIV ravages Africa.
“Thomas regularly checked in with Meadows to encourage him to push claims of voter fraud and work to prevent the election from being certified. Meadows often responded. On that same day as the previous text, he wrote: “I will stand firm. We will fight until there is no fight left. Our country is too precious to give up on. Thanks for all you do.”
Meadows quotes scripture to Ginni Thomas – who responds as if she understood! This is part of the Congressional Record. I demand the Jan.6th. Committee admit the whole text, because in my opinion, this is the birth of Anti-Semitism. Paul is fighting with the Jewish followers of Jesus – over circumcisions – in order to create a schism, like the one the Christian Nationalists created in this Democracy.
“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
That same day, Mr Meadows texted her back: “This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.
Indeed, more than 300 Republican candidates for state and national office have been identified by CBS News as “election deniers” for having stated their refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election as legitimate.
The U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision to hear a potentially monumental elections case has caused anger and panic as critics argue the case could upend U.S. elections.
Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the move a “judicial coup” while one former adviser to former President Bill Clinton said people should be “panic-stricken.”
The Court has agreed to hear Moore v. Harper during its next session. That case challenges the North Carolina Supreme Court’s right to strike down electoral maps drawn by the state legislature.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For the Nothing But Thieves album, see Moral Panic (album).
The witch-hunts in early modern Europe are a historical example of mass behavior potentially fueled by moral panic. 1555 German print.
A moral panic is a widespread feeling of fear, often an irrational one, that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society.[page needed] It is “the process of arousing social concern over an issue”, usually perpetuated by moral entrepreneurs and the mass media, and exacerbated by politicians and lawmakers.
Stanley Cohen, who developed the term, states that moral panic happens when “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests”. While the issues identified may be real, the claims “exaggerate the seriousness, extent, typicality and/or inevitability of harm”. Moral panics are now studied in sociology and criminology, media studies, and cultural studies.
Examples of moral panic include the belief in widespread abduction of children by predatory pedophiles; belief in ritual abuse of women and children by Satanic cults; and concerns over the effects of music lyrics. Some moral panics can become embedded in standard political discourse, which include concepts such as the “Red Scare“ and terrorism.
It differs from mass hysteria, which is closer to a psychological illness rather than a sociological phenomenon.
- 1History and development
- 2Cohen’s model of moral panic
- 3Mass media
- 4Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s attributional model
- 5Topic clusters
- 6Real-world examples
- 6.1Historic examples
- 6.1.1Nativist movement and the Know-Nothing Party (1840s–60s)
- 6.1.2Red Scare (1919–1920, late 1940s–50s)
- 6.1.3″The Devil’s music” (1920s–80s)
- 6.1.4Switchblades (1950s)
- 6.1.5Mods and rockers (1960s)
- 6.1.6Dungeons & Dragons (1980s–90s)
- 6.1.7Satanic panic (1980s–)
- 6.1.8HIV/AIDS (1980s–90s)
- 6.1.9Dangerous dogs (late 1980s–early 1990s)
- 6.2Ongoing historic examples
- 6.3Contemporary examples
- 6.1Historic examples
- 8See also
- 11Further reading
- 12External links
History and development
Though the term moral panic was used in 1830 by a religious magazine regarding a sermon, it was used in a way that completely differs from its modern social science application. The phrase was used again in 1831, with an intent that is possibly closer to its modern use.
Though not using the term moral panic, Marshall McLuhan, in his 1964 book Understanding Media, articulated the concept academically in describing the effects of media.
As a social theory or sociological concept, the concept was first developed in the United Kingdom by Stanley Cohen, who introduced the phrase moral panic in a 1967–69 PhD thesis that became the basis for his 1972 book Folk Devils and Moral Panics. In the book, Cohen describes the reaction among the British public to the rivalry between the “mod” and “rocker” youth subcultures of the 1960s and 1970s. Cohen’s initial development of the concept was for the purpose of analyzing the definition of and social reaction to these subcultures as a social problem.
According to Cohen, a moral panic occurs when a “condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.” To Cohen, those who start the panic after fearing a threat to prevailing social or cultural values are ‘moral entrepreneurs‘, while those who supposedly threaten social order have been described as ‘folk devils‘.
In the early 1990s, Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda produced an “attributional” model that placed more emphasis on strict definition than cultural processes.
Differences in British and American definitions
Many sociologists have pointed out the differences between definitions of a moral panic as described by American versus British sociologists. Kenneth Thompson claimed that American sociologists tended to emphasize psychological factors, while the British portrayed “moral panics” as crises of capitalism.
British criminologist Jock Young used the term in his participant observation study of drug consumption in Porthmadog, Wales, between 1967 and 1969. In Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order (1978), Marxist Stuart Hall and his colleagues studied the public reaction to the phenomenon of mugging and the perception that it had recently been imported from American culture into the UK. Employing Cohen’s definition of moral panic, Hall and colleagues theorized that the “rising crime rate equation” performs an ideological function relating to social control. Crime statistics, in Hall’s view, are often manipulated for political and economic purposes; moral panics could thereby be ignited to create public support for the need to “police the crisis”.
Cohen’s model of moral panic
|Published||1972 (1st ed., MacGibbon and Kee)1980 (2nd ed., Basil Blackwood)2002 (3rd ed., Routledge)|
First to name the phenomenon, Stanley Cohen investigated a series of “moral panics” in his 1972 book Folk Devils and Moral Panics. In the book, Cohen describes the reaction among the British public to the seaside rivalry between the “mod” and “rocker” youth subcultures of the 1960s and 1970s. In a moral panic, Cohen says, “the untypical is made typical”.
Cohen’s initial development of the concept was for the purpose of analyzing the definition of and social reaction to these subcultures as a social problem. He was interested in demonstrating how agents of social control amplified deviance, in that they potentially damaged the identities of those labeled as “deviant” and invited them to embrace deviant identities and behavior. According to Cohen, these groups were labelled as being outside the central core values of consensual society and as posing a threat to both the values of society and society itself, hence the term “folk devils“.
Setting out to test his hypotheses on mods and rockers, Cohen ended up in a rather different place: he discovered a pattern of construction and reaction with greater foothold than mods and rockers – the moral panic. He thereby identified five sequential stages of moral panic.
Characterizing the reactions to the mod and rocker conflict, he identified four key agents in moral panics: mass media, moral entrepreneurs, the culture of social control, and the public.
In a more recent edition of Folk Devils and Moral Panics, Cohen suggested that the term “panic” in itself connotes irrationality and a lack of control. Cohen maintained that “panic” is a suitable term when used as an extended metaphor.
Cohen’s stages of moral panic
Setting out to test his hypotheses on mods and rockers, Cohen discovered a pattern of construction and reaction with greater foothold than mods and rockers – the moral panic.
According to Cohen, there are five sequential stages in the construction of a moral panic:
- An event, condition, episode, person, or group of persons is perceived and defined as a threat to societal values, safety, and interests.
- The nature of these apparent threats are amplified by the mass media, who present the supposed threat through simplistic, symbolic rhetoric. Such portrayals appeal to public prejudices, creating an evil in need of social control (folk devils) and victims (the moral majority).
- A sense of social anxiety and concern among the public is aroused through these symbolic representations of the threat.
- The gatekeepers of morality – editors, religious leaders, politicians, and other “moral”-thinking people – respond to the threat, with socially-accredited experts pronouncing their diagnoses and solutions to the “threat”. This includes new laws or policies.
- The condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible.
Cohen observed further:
Sometimes the object of the panic is quite novel and at other times it is something which has been in existence long enough, but suddenly appears in the limelight. Sometimes the panic passes over and is forgotten, except in folk-lore and collective memory; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way the society conceives itself.
Agents of moral panic
Characterizing the reactions to the mod and rocker conflict, Cohen identified four key agents in moral panics: mass media, moral entrepreneurs, the culture of social control, and the public.
- Media – especially key in the early stage of social reaction, producing “processed or coded images” of deviance and the deviants. This involves three processes:
- exaggeration and distortion of who did or said what;
- prediction, the dire consequences of failure to act;
- symbolization, signifying a person, word, or thing as a threat.
- Moral entrepreneurs – individuals and groups who target deviant behavior
- Societal control culture – comprises those with institutional power: the police, the courts, and local and national politicians. They are made aware of the nature and extent of the ‘threat’; concern is passed up the chain of command to the national level, where control measures are instituted.
- The public – these include individuals and groups. They have to decide who and what to believe: in the mod and rocker case, the public initially distrusted media messages, but ultimately believed them.
The concept of “moral panic” has also been linked to certain assumptions about the mass media. In recent times, the mass media have become important players in the dissemination of moral indignation, even when they do not appear to be consciously engaged in sensationalism or in muckraking. Simply reporting a subset of factual statements without contextual nuance can be enough to generate concern, anxiety, or panic.
Cohen stated that the mass media is the primary source of the public’s knowledge about deviance and social problems. He further argued that moral panic gives rise to the folk devil by labelling actions and people. Christian Joppke, furthers the importance of media as he notes, shifts in public attention “can trigger the decline of movements and fuel the rise of others.”
According to Cohen, the media appear in any or all three roles in moral panic dramas:
- Setting the agenda – selecting deviant or socially problematic events deemed as newsworthy, then using finer filters to select which events are candidates for moral panic.
- Transmitting the images – transmitting the claims by using the rhetoric of moral panics.
- Breaking the silence and making the claim.
Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s attributional model
In their 1994 book Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance, Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda take a social constructionist approach to moral panics, challenging the assumption that sociology is able to define, measure, explain, and ameliorate social problems.
Reviewing empirical studies in the social constructionist perspective, Goode and Ben-Yehuda produced an “attributional” model that identifies essential characteristics and placed more emphasis on strict definition than cultural processes. They arrived at five defining “elements”, or “criteria”, of a moral panic:
- Concern – there is “heightened level of concern over the behaviour of a certain group or category” and its consequences; in other words, there is the belief that the behavior of the group or activity deemed deviant is likely to have a negative effect on society. Concern can be indicated via opinion polls, media coverage, and lobbying activity.
- Hostility – there is “an increased level of hostility” toward the deviants, who are “collectively designated as the enemy, or an enemy, of respectable society”. These deviants are constructed as “folk devils“, and a clear division forms between “them” and “us”.
- Consensus – “there must be at least a certain minimal measure of consensus” across society as a whole, or at least “designated segments” of it, that “the threat is real, serious and caused by the wrongdoing group members and their behaviour”. This is to say, though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the “moral entrepreneurs” are vocal and the “folk devils” appear weak and disorganized.
- Disproportionality – “public concern is in excess of what is appropriate if concern were directly proportional to objective harm”. More simply, the action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group. According to Goode and Ben-Yehuda, “the concept of moral panic rests on disproportion”. As such, statistics are exaggerated or fabricated, and the existence of other equally or more harmful activity is denied.
- Volatility – moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared because public interest wanes or news reports change to another narrative.
Goode and Ben-Yehuda also examined three competing explanations of moral panics:
- the grass-roots model – the source of panic is identified as widespread anxieties about real or imagined threats.
- the elite-engineered model – an elite group induces, or engineers, a panic over an issue that they know to be exaggerated in order to move attention away from their own lack of solving social problems.
- the interest group theory – “the middle rungs of power and status” are where moral issues are most significantly felt.
Similarly, writing about the Blue Whale Challenge and the Momo Challenge as examples of moral panics, Benjamin Radford listed themes that he commonly observed in modern versions of these phenomena:
- Hidden dangers of modern technology.
- Evil stranger manipulating the innocent.
- A “hidden world” of anonymous evil people.
In over 40 years of extensive study, researchers have identified several general clusters of topics that help describe the way in which moral panics operate and the impact they have. Some of the more common clusters identified are: child abuse, drugs and alcohol, immigration, media technologies, and street crime.
Exceptional cases of physical or sexual abuse against children have driven policies based on child protection, regardless of their frequency or contradicting evidence from experts. While discoveries about pedophilia in the priesthood and among celebrities has somewhat altered the original notion of pedophiles being complete strangers, their presence in and around the family is hardly acknowledged.
Drugs and alcohol
Substances used for pleasure like drugs and alcohol are popularly subject to legal action and criminalization due to their alleged harms to the health of those who partake in them or general order on the streets. The most recent examples include methamphetamine, mephedrone, and designer drugs.
A series of moral panic is likely to recur whenever humans migrate to a foreign location to live alongside the native or indigenous population, particularly if the newcomers are of a different skin color. These immigrants may be accused of: bringing alien cultures and refusing to integrate with the mainstream culture; putting strain on welfare, education, and housing systems; and excessive involvement in crime.